About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
to jerusalem to help secure a truce before israel launches a ground invasion. u.n. secretary-general ban ki moon is also there and nine arab leaders are showing solidarity with the palestinians. a big change since the last serious fighting four years ago. earlier today at the u.n., the united states blocked a joint statement condemning the conflict because it didn't mention the root cause which the u.s. says is hamas missile attacks. nbc's martin fletcher is in tel aviv and martin, if there's a talk of cease-fire, what is israel doing dropping leaflets? >> reporter: that's a good question. israel actually -- it has not said that the cease-fire is as far advanced as the arabs have. israel is insisting on a long-term solution and they haven't got that yet. so what they're doing is still preparing their way for a possible ground invasion if these talks of a truce fall through. so israel's army is still poised to invade and they have dropped leaflets in certain areas of gaza, eltelling people to stay away from certain roads, particularly in the north, where the israeli army has gone in first wh
are talking about is who is going to replace hillary clinton. the two names who have voted is u.n. ambassador susan rice and john kerry. i have no problem with susan rice. i think she's fantastic and unfortunate how she's been treated recently. i tell you, john kerry during this campaign has been fantastic in his debate prep with the president. i thought his speech as the dp nc was brilliant, and i think he would be a terrific diplomat. there's concerns that if he was nominated then the senate -- his senate seat would be open and scott brown could have another shot at getting into the senate. i don't think that would be the worst thing in the world for the president, especially since we picked up seats this time around. scott brown, as a republican who may actually across the aisle, could actually serve as a useful political tool for the president. that will be interesting to watch. the other one, of course, is treasury secretary time geithner leaving. one of the outside names that's been floated is cheryl sandberg, coo of facebook. she's the first one and she's had a terrific choice. another
are john kerry and u.n. ambassador susan rice, who has been caught up in the questions about benghazi. so if hillary clinton does leave, does that put more pressure on the president to go in a different direction other than susan rice? >> well, i'm only speculating now, because my reporting on this dates back to well before the election when i got a little bit focused there. i will say that if you talk to people in democratic establishment and political establishment on the hill and in national security circles, you do find that neither of those candidates is seen right now as a perfect choice. there are drawbacks to both of them. ambassador rice has a lot of supporters first and foremost, the president to be sure. controversy over her public statements about benghazi give people pause about whether she's the right person with a confirmation process over, whether she's the right person for the job. in the case of senator kerry, there's doubts from some people about whether he'd be the perfect secretary of state. he was passed over four years ago for secretary clinton. if you took him out
for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. >>> u.n. ambassador and secretary of state front-runner susan rice on capitol hill today meeting with two more republican senators. susan collins from the armed services committee and bob corker of the foreign relations committee. following the meeting, senator collins echos the comments of colleagues that met with rice, she expressed concern of how the events played out in benghazi before and after the september 11th consulate attacks. the senator also weighed in on her choice to replace hillary clinton and it's not susan rice. >> i think john kerry would be an excellent appointment and would be easily confirmed by his colleagues. >> following his meeting, senator corker called on the president to reconsider nominating rice. >> all of us here hold the secretary of state to a very different standard than most cabinet members. there's a handful of people that the president surrounds himself with that all of us hold to a very different level and secretary of state no doubt is one of those. >> so let's put
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)